I don't think they would have had to use even 6, but at least 4. IF they had done that, it would have helped her credibility and LE's bias. Not doing that along with Gracie's confusion on the stand rendered this evidence questionable IMO. It was quicker, easier, less confusing to do only 1 picture (his) but it IMO caused prosecution's some problems. Then we had postal lady and the first Newspaper lady who agreed on the lights in the house being "ON."
The Jury Hangs - Justice Delayed
- Thread starter Madeleine74
- Start date
- Status
I don't think they would have had to use even 6, but at least 4. IF they had done that, it would have helped her credibility and LE's bias. Not doing that along with Gracie's confusion on the stand rendered this evidence questionable IMO. It was quicker, easier, less confusing to do only 1 picture (his) but it IMO caused prosecution's some problems. Then we had postal lady and the first Newspaper lady who agreed on the lights in the house being "ON."
dgfred
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 4,560
- Reaction score
- 8,835
But if you only show the one picture, you are going to have that same argument from the defense EVERY time. I don't see how if she was so sure it was him how she got flustered so easily and said he was like 5 foot 2 :waitasec: .
I think her confusion over height and thickness of hair probably created the doubt that then made it more obvious that only one pic was used. Then coupled with very believable eyewitnesses in the Young neighborhood and lack of additional gas purchase created a serious doubt for the jury.
janesdean
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 0
ITA Excellent lists by all of you, send them to C. Willoughby !! I hope the DA's office has somebody who reads here, it should be stressed to them how strongly the people feel about how this case was handled and how it absolutely needs to be retried.
janesdean
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 0
Hopefully there will be a second trial, and if so that canvassed area should be enlarged to include any other gas stations JY could have used. Buying only $15 worth of gas probably wasn't all he bought, I think he got spooked by his own bad behavior and just took off because he realized it and panicked. Could easily have purchased gas somewhere else before returning to the hotel, or even on the way back to Birchleaf between midnite and 3 am.
How can they enlarge the size of the canvassed area? They can't simply go to even more gas stations and ask the people who worked there if they remember selling gas to someone 5 years ago.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
Searches for a person just aren't done that way. It would be way too confusing, and most people wouldn't even bother to look at a line up of pictures. Victims are shown a line-up. People who are ALREADY known witnesses are shown line-ups. Going from place to place trying to find *if* a particular person, took a particular route, the cops don't go around with photo line-ups to ask 'did this person come in here'. That would just be dumb. I've never NEVER heard nor seen this sort of thing done when attempting to discern whether or not a person traveled a route or form of transportation. That would be like taking a whole line-up of photos to the airport, and asking every airline employee 'did you ever see any of these people?' Just isn't done that way. And shouldn't be IMO. When looking for a particular person, you show the picture of that person. Period.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
She never said he was like 5'2". At some point in time, she described him as a little taller than herself. I've said this before, unless I see someone right up next to someone else that I already know the height of, I'm terrible at judging height. Especially skinny people. Skinny people always look shorter to me. That's just me. I am still curious, does Gracie have a hearing problem? She talks like a person who is hard of hearing. I know someone, close in age to Gracie, from the mountains area, who is extremely hard of hearing, and sounds very much like Gracie, her pronounciation of vowels, other basic letters, R's, etc. She *compensates* very well by lip reading, but unless I am right in front of her, I know she doesn't hear what I'm saying. And I know she doesn't hear/read, each and every word I say.
evelyn24
cray cray
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 2,115
- Reaction score
- 11
There are some good ideas here, but I think we should keep in mind that if the state goes on the hunt for evidence to help disprove JY's contentions and while doing so, they discover evidence that confirms what he said, then they may have to turn it over to the DT. That would end up only helping him. It's a tough call IMO.
Maybe some of the things were lies, such as the way the door shut, but what if other guests had reported it that way too? Then a jury may be more inclined to believe more of what JY said. If it turns out the way you suspect, it's great, but if it not, you've supplied him with more evidence to bolster his story. It's a tough call.
Maybe some of the things were lies, such as the way the door shut, but what if other guests had reported it that way too? Then a jury may be more inclined to believe more of what JY said. If it turns out the way you suspect, it's great, but if it not, you've supplied him with more evidence to bolster his story. It's a tough call.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Young Jury Forman: "No Doubt There was Reasonable Doubt"
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9800989/
I'd say he's confused about the concept of doubt. ;-)
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9800989/
I'd say he's confused about the concept of doubt. ;-)
marspiter
Blah Blah Blah
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,219
- Reaction score
- 1
Well obviously 7 other jurors felt there was doubt along with the foreman. I think many need to remember that the jurors are not like those following this case on sites like WS. For starters they go in not knowing any details of the case and are not supposed to have any preconceived notions. The SA has the burden of proving guilt. On a forum such as WS there is no innocent until proven guilty like there is in a court of law.
The SA clearly had to many holes in it's case according to these jurors. 8 out of 12 voted NG. Two of those jurors even flipped from a G to a NG verdict. So I would assume that these jurors took their civic duty seriously. I think to suggest otherwise is wrong.
Yep, I am very much aware of how canvassing is done. And Yes, I admit it is not normal and is awkward to canvass with several pics. But showing her his pic only is highly prejudicial and highly questionable especially when it comes to court if she now can't get the description right. You can tap dance all around it and make excuses for being short and having problems with identifying height of individuals, but jury members don't care about it. Fact is she should not be excused for any alleged lack of ability to determine size. If it were reversed, you would not be excusing her confusion but hammering her for not nailing the size and hair.
I have a lot of other attorney friends who say her believability is questionable because of prejudice in showing only one pic. And, they furthermore, say that the postal lady and newspaper lady are believable when combined together. Now these individuals are intelligent and very familiar with reasonable doubt. Nope we have big problems if we think Gracie helped our case. Anyway, GL, you are entitled to your opinion. But I ask you one question: Why do you think this idea is dumb in light of the hung jury. Are we going to continue to think only inside of the box or look at the fact that this jury has asked for higher set of standards in regard to reasonable doubt?
As always, MOO.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
She told Spivey, within days after the murder, that the person who confronted her that morning was "tall, thin, light hair" and he was "driving a white SUV." How much weight do you give her description back in '06 vs. what she said that day on the stand? Do you discard her earlier description of both the man and the SUV?
I would hope that they would tell us more about their reasonable doubt. Confusion is possible but I prefer to say that each of us has our personal definition of reasonable doubt. Honestly, I think this jury saw some gaps in the evidence, could not hold his failure to talk about the case against him, and probably had trouble with eyewitness testimony or testimonies.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
I was joking. Did no one notice the wink at the end of what I wrote?
I think it is unfortunate that she became confused 5 years later on the stand. However, the jury has to evaluate the older evidence in light of the newer testimony. Perhaps they did and decided to negate her testimony. I do not know. What I think about the canvassing and the testimony is irrelevant. It is what the jury believes. We all know the problems in eyewitness testimony.
According to GL, short individuals have trouble telling height. If she is correct, could we believe her assessment of height at any time? Maybe the jury had all tall individuals who were not aware of this problem in height determination by shorter individuals. I had never heard of it before, but I am relatively tall.
dgfred
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 4,560
- Reaction score
- 8,835
I don't discard anything?
That is still not an excuse for not having her completely prepared for her testimony, and going over her past statements to know 'by heart' IMO.
Another thought I had... does anyone think he may have known already about no cameras at both the gas station and the hotel? Maybe he knew of other stations that camera's were not working?
- Status